The Grammar of English Grammars · Chapter 158Chapter III.—Cases, or Nouns. (1)
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
The rules for the construction of Nouns, or Cases, are seven; hence this chapter, according to the order adopted above, reviews the series of rules from the second rule to the eighth, inclusively. Though Nouns are here the topic, all these seven rules apply alike to Nouns and to Pronouns; that is, to all the words of our language which are susceptible of Cases.
A Noun or a Pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case: as, "The Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things; and they derided him."—Luke, xvi, 14. "But where the meekness of self-knowledge veileth the front of self-respect, there look thou for the man whom none can know but they will honour."—Book of Thoughts, p. 66.
"Dost thou mourn Philander's fate? I know thou sayst it: says thy life the same?" —Young, N. ii, l. 22.
OBS. 1.—To this rule, there are no exceptions; and nearly all nominatives, or far the greater part, are to be parsed by it. There are however four different ways of disposing of the nominative case. First, it is generally the subject of a verb, according to Rule 2d. Secondly, it may be put in apposition with an other nominative, according to Rule 3d. Thirdly, it may be put after a verb or a participle not transitive, according to Rule 6th. Fourthly, it may be put absolute, or may help to form a phrase that is independent of the rest of the sentence, according to Rule 8th.
OBS. 2.—The subject, or nominative, is generally placed before the verb; as, "Peace dawned upon his mind."—Johnson. "What is written in the law?"—Bible. But, in the following nine cases, the subject of the verb is usually placed after it, or after the first auxiliary: 1. When a question is asked without an interrogative pronoun in the nominative case; as, "Shall mortals be implacable?"—Hooke. "What art thou doing?"—Id. "How many loaves have ye?"—Bible. "Are they Israelites? so am I."—Ib.
2. When the verb is in the imperative mood; as, "Go thou"—"Come ye" But, with this mood, the pronoun is very often omitted and understood; as, "Philip saith unto him, Come and see"—John, i, 46. "And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted."—Mark, xvi, 5.
3. When an earnest wish, or other strong feeling, is expressed; as, "May she be happy!"—"How were we struck!"—Young. "Not as the world giveth, give I unto you."—Bible.
4. When a supposition is made without the conjunction if; as, "Had they known it;" for, "If they had known it."—"Were it true;" for, "If it were true."—"Could we draw by the covering of the grave;" for, "If we could draw," &c.
5. When neither or nor, signifying and not, precedes the verb; as, "This was his fear; nor was his apprehension groundless."—"Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it."—Gen., iii, 3.
6. When, for the sake of emphasis, some word or words are placed before the verb, which more naturally come after it; as, "Here am I."—"Narrow is the way."—"Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have, give I thee."—Bible.
7. When the verb has no regimen, and is itself emphatical; as, "Echo the mountains round."—Thomson. "After the Light Infantry marched the Grenadiers, then followed the Horse."—Buchanan's Syntax, p. 71.
8. When the verbs, say, answer, reply, and the like, introduce the parts of a dialogue; as, "'Son of affliction,' said Omar, 'who art thou?' 'My name,' replied the stranger, 'is Hassan.'"—Dr. Johnson.
9. When the adverb there precedes the verb; as, "There lived a man."—Montgomery. "In all worldly joys, there is a secret wound."—Owen. This use of there, the general introductory adverb of place, is idiomatic, and somewhat different from the use of the same word in reference to a particular locality; as, "Because there was not much water there."—John, iii, 23.
OBS. 3.—In exclamations, and some other forms of expression, a few verbs are liable to be suppressed, the ellipsis being obvious; as, "How different [is] this from the philosophy of Greece and Rome!"—DR. BEATTIE: Murray's Sequel, p. 127. "What a lively picture [is here] of the most disinterested and active benevolence!"—HERVEY: ib., p. 94. "When Adam [spake] thus to Eve."—MILTON: Paradise Lost, B. iv, l. 610.
OBS. 4.—Though we often use nouns in the nominative case to show whom we address, yet the imperative verb takes no other nominative of the second person, than the simple personal pronoun, thou, ye, or you, expressed or understood. It would seem that some, who ought to know better, are liable to mistake for the subject of such a verb, the noun which we put absolute in the nominative by direct address. Of this gross error, the following is an example: "Study boys. In this sentence," (says its author,) "study is a verb of the second person, plural number, and agrees with its nominative case, boys—according to the rule: A verb must agree with its nominative case in number and person. Boys is a noun of the second person, plural number, masculine gender, in the nominative case to the verb study."—Ingersoll's Gram., p. 17.[339] Now the fact is, that this laconic address, of three syllables, is written wrong; being made bad English for want of a comma between the two words. Without this mark, boys must be an objective, governed by study; and with it, a nominative, put absolute by direct address. But, in either case, study agrees with ye or you understood, and has not the noun for its subject, or nominative.
OBS. 5.—Some authors say, and if the first person be no exception, say truly: "The nominative case to a verb, unless it be a pronoun, is always of the third person."—Churchill's Gram., p. 141. But W. B. Fowle will have all pronouns to be adjectives. Consequently all his verbs, of every sort, agree with nouns "expressed or understood." This, and every other absurd theory of language, can easily be made out, by means of a few perversions, which may be called corrections, and a sufficient number of interpolations, made under pretence of filling up ellipses. Thus, according to this author, "They fear," means, "They things spoken of fear."—True Eng. Gram., p, 33. And, "John, open the door," or, "Boys, stop your noise," admits no comma. And, "Be grateful, ye children," and, "Be ye grateful children," are, in his view, every way equivalent: the comma in the former being, in his opinion, needless. See ib., p. 39.
OBS. 6.—Though the nominative and objective cases of nouns do not differ in form, it is nevertheless, in the opinion of many of our grammarians, improper to place any noun in both relations at once, because this produces a confusion in the syntax of the word. Examples: "He then goes on to declare that there are, and distinguish of, four manners of saying Per se."—Walker's Treatise of Particles, p. xii. Better: "He then proceeds to show, that per se is susceptible of four different senses." "In just allegory and similitude there is always a propriety, or, if you choose to call it, congruity, in the literal sense, as well as a distinct meaning or sentiment suggested, which is called the figurative sense."—Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 291. Better: "In just allegory or similitude, there is always a propriety—or, if you choose to call it so, a congruity—in the literal sense," &c. "It must then be meant of his sins who makes, not of his who becomes, the convert."—Atterbury's Sermons, i, 2. Better: "It must then be meant of his sins who makes the convert, not of his who becomes converted." "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."—1 Cor., ii, 9. A more regular construction would be: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." The following example, from Pope, may perhaps be conceded to the poet, as an allowable ellipsis of the words "a friend," after is:
"In who obtain defence, or who defend; In him who is, or him who finds, a friend." —Essay on Man, Ep. iv, l. 60.
Dr. Lowth cites the last three examples, without suggesting any forms of correction; and says of them, "There seems to be an impropriety in these sentences, in which the same noun stands in a double capacity, performing at the same time the offices both of the nominative and objective case."—Lowth's Gram., p. 73. He should have said—"of both the nominative and the objective case." Dr. Webster, citing the line, "In him who is, and him who finds, a friend," adds, "Lowth condemns this use of the noun in the nominative and objective at the same time; but without reason, as the cases are not distinguished in English."—Improved Gram., p. 175.
OBS. 7.—In Latin and Greek, the accusative before the infinitive, is often reckoned the subject of the latter verb; and is accordingly parsed by a sort of exception to the foregoing rule—or rather, to that general rule of concord which the grammarians apply to the verb and its nominative. This construction is translated into English, and other modern tongues, sometimes literally, or nearly so, but much oftener, by a nominative and a finite verb. Example: "[Greek: Eipen auton phonæthænai]."—Mark, x, 49. "Ait illum vocari."—Leusden. "Jussit eum vocari."—Beza. "Præcepit illum vocari."—Vulgate. "He commanded him to be called."—English Bible. "He commanded that he should be called."—Milnes's Gr. Gram., p. 143. "Il dit qu'on l'appelât."—French Bible. "He bid that somebody should call him." "Il commanda qu'on le fît venir."—Nouveau Test., Paris, 1812. "He commanded that they should make him come;" that is, "lead him, or bring him." "Il commanda qu'on l'appelât."—De Sacy's N. Test.
OBS. 8.—In English, the objective case before the infinitive mood, although it may truly denote the agent of the infinitive action, or the subject of the infinitive passion, is nevertheless taken as the object of the preceding verb, participle, or preposition. Accordingly our language does not admit a literal translation of the above-mentioned construction, except the preceding verb be such as can be interpreted transitively. "Gaudeo te val=ere," "I am glad that thou art well," cannot be translated more literally; because, "I am glad thee to be well," would not be good English. "Aiunt regem advent=are," "They say the king is coming," may be otherwise rendered "They declare the king to be coming;" but neither version is entirely literal; the objective being retained only by a change of aiunt, say, into such a verb as will govern the noun.
OBS. 9.—The following sentence is a literal imitation of the Latin accusative before the infinitive, and for that reason it is not good English: "But experience teacheth us, both these opinions to be alike ridiculous."—Barclay's Works, Vol. i, p. 262. It should be, "But experience teaches us, that both these opinions are alike ridiculous." The verbs believe, think, imagine, and others expressing mental action, I suppose to be capable of governing nouns or pronouns in the objective case, and consequently of being interpreted transitively. Hence I deny the correctness of the following explanation: "RULE XXIV. The objective case precedes the infinitive mode; [as,] 'I believe your brother to be a good man.' Here believe does not govern brother, in the objective case, because it is not the object after it. Brother, in the objective case, third person singular, precedes the neuter verb to be, in the infinitive mode, present time, third person singular."—S. Barrett's Gram., p. 135. This author teaches that, "The infinitive mode agrees with the objective case in number and person."—Ibid. Which doctrine is denied; because the infinitive has no number or person, in any language. Nor do I see why the noun brother, in the foregoing example, may not be both the object of the active verb believe, and the subject of the neuter infinitive to be, at the same time; for the subject of the infinitive, if the infinitive can be said to have a subject, is not necessarily in the nominative case, or necessarily independent of what precedes.
OBS. 10.—There are many teachers of English grammar, who still adhere to the principle of the Latin and Greek grammarians, which refers the accusative or objective to the latter verb, and supposes the former to be intransitive, or to govern only the infinitive. Thus Nixon: "The objective case is frequently put before the infinitive mood, as its subject; as, 'Suffer me to depart.'" [340]—English Parser, p. 34. "When an objective case stands before an infinitive mood, as 'I understood it to be him,' 'Suffer me to depart,' such objective should be parsed, not as governed by the preceding verb, but as the objective case before the infinitive; that is, the subject of it. The reason of this is—the former verb can govern one object only, and that is (in such sentences) the infinitive mood; the intervening objective being the subject of the infinitive following, and not governed by the former verb; as, in that instance, it would be governing two objects."—Ib., Note.[341]
OBS. 11.—The notion that one verb governs an other in the infinitive, just as a transitive verb governs a noun, and so that it cannot also govern an objective case, is not only contradictory to my scheme of parsing the infinitive mood, but is also false in itself, and repugnant to the principles of General Grammar. In Greek and Latin, it is certainly no uncommon thing for a verb to govern two cases at once; and even the accusative before the infinitive is sometimes governed by the preceding verb, as the objective before the infinitive naturally is in English. But, in regard to construction, every language differs more or less from every other; hence each must have its own syntax, and abide by its own rules. In regard to the point here in question, the reader may compare the following examples: "[Greek: Echo anagkæn exelthein]."—Luke, xiv, 18. "Habeo necesse exire."—Leusden. English: "I have occasion to go away." Again: "[Greek: O echon hota akouein, akoueto]."—Luke, xiv, 35. "Habens aures audiendi, audiat."—Leusden. "Qui habet aures ad audiendum, audiat."—Beza. English: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." But our most frequent use of the infinitive after the objective, is in sentences that must not be similarly constructed in Latin or Greek;[342] as, "And he commanded the porter to watch."—Mark, xiii, 34. "And he delivered Jesus to be crucified."—Mark, xv, 15. "And they led him out to crucify him."—Mark, xv, 20. "We heard him say."—Mark, xiv, 58. "That I might make thee know."—Prov., xxii, 21.
OBS. 12.—If our language does really admit any thing like the accusative before the infinitive, in the sense of a positive subject at the head of a clause, it is only in some prospective descriptions like the following: "Let certain studies be prescribed to be pursued during the freshman year; some of these to be attended to by the whole class; with regard to others, a choice to be allowed; which, when made by the student, (the parent or guardian sanctioning it,) to be binding during the freshman year: the same plan to be adopted with regard to the studies of the succeeding years."—GALLAUDET: Journal of the N. Y. Literary Convention, p. 118. Here the four words, some, choice, which, and plan, may appear to a Latinist to be so many objectives, or accusatives, placed before infinitives, and used to describe that state of things which the author would promote. If objectives they are, we may still suppose them to be governed by let, would have, or something of the kind, understood: as, "Let some of these be attended to;" or, "Some of these I would have to be attended to," &c. The relative which might with more propriety be made nominative, by changing "to be binding" to "shall be binding;" and as to the rest, it is very doubtful whether they are not now nominatives, rather than objectives. The infinitive, as used above, is a mere substitute for the Latin future participle; and any English noun or pronoun put absolute with a participle, is in the nominative case. English relatives are rarely, if ever, put absolute in this manner: and this may be the reason why the construction of which, in the sentence above, seems awkward. Besides, it is certain that the other pronouns are sometimes put absolute with the infinitive; and that, in the nominative case, not the objective: as,
"And I to be a corporal in his field, And wear his colours like a tumbler's hoop! What? I! I love! I sue! I seek a wife!"—Shak., Love's Labour Lost.
"The whole need not a physician, but them that are sick."—Bunyan's Law and Gr., p. iv.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the objective pronoun them is here made the subject of the verb need, understood. But, according to Rule 2d, "A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a finite verb, must be in the nominative case." Therefore, them should be they; thus, "The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."]
"He will in no wise cast out whomsoever cometh unto him."—Robert Hall "He feared the enemy might fall upon his men, whom he saw were off their guard."—Hutchinson's Massachusetts, ii, 133. "Whomsoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain."—Dymond's Essays, p. 48. "The idea's of the author have been conversant with the faults of other writers."—Swift's T. T., p. 55. "You are a much greater loser than me by his death."—Swift to Pope, l. 63. "Such peccadillo's pass with him for pious frauds."—Barclay's Works, Vol. iii, p. 279. "In whom I am nearly concerned, and whom I know would be very apt to justify my whole procedure."—Ib., i, 560. "Do not think such a man as me contemptible for my garb."—Addison. "His wealth and him bid adieu to each other."—Priestley's Gram., p. 107. "So that, 'He is greater than me,' will be more grammatical than, 'He is greater than I.'"—Ib., p. 106. "The Jesuits had more interests at court than him."—SMOLLETT: in Pr. Gram., p. 106.[343] "Tell the Cardinal that I understand poetry better than him."—Id., ib. "An inhabitant of Crim Tartary was far more happy than him."—Id., ib. "My father and him have been very intimate since."—Fair American, ii, 53. "Who was the agent, and whom the object struck or kissed?"—Infant School Gram., p. 32. "To find the person whom he imagined was concealed there."—Kirkham's Elocution, p. 225. "He offered a great recompense to whomsoever would help him."—HUME: in Pr. Gram., p. 104. "They would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whomsoever might exercise the right of judgement."—Gov. Haynes's Speech, in 1832. "They had promised to accept whomsoever should be born in Wales."—Stories by Croker. "We sorrow not as them that have no hope."—Maturin's Sermons, p. 27. "If he suffers, he suffers as them that have no hope."—Ib., p. 32. "We acknowledge that he, and him only, hath been our peacemaker."—Gratton. "And what can be better than him that made it?"—Jenks's Prayers, p. 329. "None of his school-fellows is more beloved than him."—Cooper's Gram., p. 42. "Solomon, who was wiser than them all."—Watson's Apology, p. 76. "Those whom the Jews thought were the last to be saved, first entered the kingdom of God."—Eleventh Hour, Tract, No. 4. "A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both."—Prov., xxvii, 3. "A man of business, in good company, is hardly more insupportable than her they call a notable woman."—Steele, Sped. "The king of the Sarmatians, whom we may imagine was no small prince, restored him a hundred thousand Roman prisoners."—Life of Antoninus, p. 83. "Such notions would be avowed at this time by none but rosicrucians, and fanatics as mad as them."—Bolingbroke's Ph. Tr., p. 24. "Unless, as I said, Messieurs, you are the masters, and not me."—BASIL HALL: Harrison's E. Lang., p. 173. "We had drawn up against peaceable travellers, who must have been as glad as us to escape."—BURNES'S TRAVELS: ibid. "Stimulated, in turn, by their approbation, and that of better judges than them, she turned to their literature with redoubled energy."—QUARTERLY REVIEW: Life of H. More: ibid. "I know not whom else are expected."—SCOTT'S PIRATE: ibid. "He is great, but truth is greater than us all."—Horace Mann, in Congress, 1850. "Him I accuse has entered."—Fowler's E. Gram., §482: see Shakspeare's Coriolanus, Act V, sc. 5.
"Scotland and thee did each in other live." —Dryden's Po., Vol. ii, p. 220.
"We are alone; here's none but thee and I." —Shak., 2 Hen. VI.
"Me rather had, my heart might feel your love, Than my unpleas'd eye see your courtesy." —Idem: Joh. Dict.
"Tell me, in sadness, whom is she you love?" —Id., Romeo and Juliet, A. I, sc. 1.
"Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire Too high a fame, when him we serve's away." —Shak., Ant. and Cleop.
A Noun or a personal Pronoun used to explain a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, in the same case: as, "But it is really I, your old friend and neighbour., Piso, late a dweller upon the Coelian hill, who am now basking in the warm skies of Palmyra."—Zenobia.
"But he, our gracious Master, kind as just, Knowing our frame, remembers we are dust."—Barbauld.
OBS. 1—Apposition is that peculiar relation which one noun or pronoun bears to an other, when two or more are placed together in the same case, and used to designate the same person or thing: as, "Cicero the orator;"—"The prophet Joel;"—"He of Gath, Goliah;"—"Which ye yourselves do know;"—"To make him king;"—"To give his life a ransom for many;"—"I made the ground my bed;"—"I, thy schoolmaster;"—"We the People of the United States." This placing-together of nouns and pronouns in the same case, was reckoned by the old grammarians a figure of syntax; and from them it received, in their elaborate detail of the grammatical and rhetorical figures, its present name of apposition. They reckoned it a species of ellipsis, and supplied between the words, the participle being, the infinitive to be, or some other part of their "substantive verb:" as, "Cicero being the orator;"—"To make him to be king;"—"I who am thy schoolmaster." But the later Latin grammarians have usually placed it among their regular concords; some calling it the first concord, while others make it the last, in the series; and some, with no great regard to consistency, treating it both as a figure and as a regular concord, at the same time.
OBS. 2.—Some English grammarians teach, "that the words in the cases preceding and following the verb to be, may be said to be in apposition to each other."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 181; R. C. Smith's, 155; Fisk's, 126; Ingersoll's, 146; Merchant's, 91. But this is entirely repugnant to the doctrine, that apposition is a figure; nor is it at all consistent with the original meaning of the word apposition; because it assumes that the literal reading, when the supposed ellipsis is supplied, is apposition still. The old distinction, however, between apposition and same cases, is generally preserved in our grammars, and is worthy ever to be so. The rule for same cases applies to all nouns or pronouns that are put after verbs or participles not transitive, and that are made to agree in case with other nouns or pronouns going before, and meaning the same thing. But some teachers who observe this distinction with reference to the neuter verb be, and to certain passive verbs of naming, appointing, and the like, absurdly break it down in relation to other verbs, neuter or active-intransitive. Thus Nixon: "Nouns in apposition are in the same case; as, 'Hortensius died a martyr;' 'Sydney lived the shepherd's friend.'"—English Parser, p. 55. It is remarkable that all this author's examples of "nominatives in apposition," (and he gives eighteen in the exercise,) are precisely of this sort, in which there is really no apposition at all.
OBS. 3.—In the exercise of parsing, rule third should be applied only to the explanatory term; because the case of the principal term depends on its relation to the rest of the sentence, and comes under some other rule. In certain instances, too, it is better to waive the analysis which might be made under rule third, and to take both or all the terms together, under the rule for the main relation. Thus, the several proper names which distinguish an individual, are always in apposition, and should be taken together in parsing; as, William Pitt—Marcus Tullius Cicero. It may, I think, be proper to include with the personal names, some titles also; as, Lord Bacon—Sir Isaac Newton. William E. Russell and Jonathan Ware, (two American authors of no great note,) in parsing the name of "George Washington," absurdly take the former word as an adjective belonging to the latter. See Russell's Gram., p. 100; and Ware's, 17. R. C. Smith does the same, both with honorary titles, and with baptismal or Christian names. See his New Gram., p. 97. And one English writer, in explaining the phrases, "John Wickliffe's influence," "Robert Bruce's exertions," and the like, will have the first nouns to be governed by the last, and the intermediate ones to be distinct possessives in apposition with the former. See Nixon's English Parser, p. 59. Wm. B. Fowle, in his "True English Grammar," takes all titles, all given names, all possessives, and all pronouns, to be adjectives. According to him, this class embraces more than half the words in the language. A later writer than any of these says, "The proper noun is philosophically an adjective. Nouns common or proper, of similar or dissimilar import, may be parsed as adjectives, when they become qualifying or distinguishing words; as, President Madison,—Doctor Johnson,—Mr. Webster,—Esq. Carleton,—Miss Gould,—Professor Ware,—lake Erie,—the Pacific ocean,—Franklin House,—Union street."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 134. I dissent from all these views, at least so far as not to divide a man's name in parsing it. A person will sometimes have such a multitude of names, that it would be a flagrant waste of time, to parse them all separately: for example, that wonderful doctor, Paracelsus, who called himself, "Aureolus Philippus Theophrastus Bombastus Paracelsus de Hoenheim."—Univ. Biog. Dict.
OBS. 4.—A very common rule for apposition in Latin, is this: "Substantives signifying the same thing, agree in case."—Adam's Latin Gram., p. 156. The same has also been applied to our language: "Substantives denoting the same person or thing, agree in case."—Bullions's E. Gram., p. 102. This rule is, for two reasons, very faulty: first, because the apposition of pronouns seems not to be included it; secondly, because two nouns that are not in the same case, do sometimes "signify" or "denote" the same thing. Thus, "the city of London," means only the city London; "the land of Egypt," is only Egypt; and "the person of Richard" is Richard himself. Dr. Webster defines apposition to be, "The placing of two nouns in the same case, without a connecting word between them."—Octavo Dict. This, too, excludes the pronouns, and has exceptions, both various and numerous. In the first place, the apposition may be of more than two nouns, without any connective; as, "Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law."—Ezra, vii, 21. Secondly, two nouns connected by a conjunction, may both be put in apposition with a preceding noun or pronoun; as, "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."—Acts, ii, 36. "Who made me a judge or a divider over you."—Luke, xii, 14. Thirdly, the apposition may be of two nouns immediately connected by and, provided the two words denote but one person or thing; as, "This great philosopher and statesman was bred a printer." Fourthly, it may be of two words connected by as, expressing the idea of a partial or assumed identity; as, "Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."—2 Thess., iii, 15. "So that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God."—Ib., ii, 4. Fifthly, it may perhaps be of two words connected by than; as, "He left them no more than dead men."—Law and Grace, p. 28. Lastly, there is a near resemblance to apposition, when two equivalent nouns are connected by or; as, "The back of the hedgehog is covered with prickles, or spines."—Webster's Dict.
OBS. 5.—To the rule for apposition, as I have expressed it, there are properly no exceptions. But there are many puzzling examples of construction under it, some of which are but little short of exceptions; and upon such of these as are most likely to embarrass the learner, some further observations shall be made. The rule supposes the first word to be the principal term, with which the other word, or subsequent noun or pronoun, is in apposition; and it generally is so: but the explanatory word is sometimes placed first, especially among the poets; as,